Double ghosting does not inherently mean "over-corrected SA" - what you often don't want for smooth BG rendering ("bright-ring bokeh").

To get a guarantee of smooth BG rendering, you have to have LOTS of under-corrected SA, like in the Canon 50L @ F1.4 or the 85L @ F1.4. Unfortunately this will have a profound impact on how sharp the images will be in the focus plane at large apertures - they may have a sharp inner "core" of detail, but detail contrast will be very low.

To make a lens sharp at WO apertures, you need SA to be low. No under- and no over-correction. And with low SA, spurious resolution (frequency doubling) can be the result in repetitive patterns like fences, bricks, striped surfaces and so on.

This is not a sign of any error, if the lens is sharp in the plane of focus the frequency doubling actually means the lens is good.

Sure, it might be a bit fast but since I am very familiar with the ZA 135/1.8 I don't see the same quality in the subjective bokeh department with the 135/2. All I can see is that it looks worse to me. Probably is better corrected and all that jazz, it just isn't as groovy.

You can see an amazing corner sharpness wide open on that book shots. And I donīt see much LoCa either, although itīs visible.That comparison with the ZA version shoud be a nice head to head, hope to see it soon

Hey, I know that guy, he didn't tell me he'd bought one! He also has the 100/2 makro afaik, I wonder if he'd do a comparison. James used to use the 135/1.8 on his a900, so he may be able to offer an informal comparison as well.

ricardovaste wrote:
Hey, I know that guy, he didn't tell me he'd bought one! He also has the 100/2 makro afaik, I wonder if he'd do a comparison. James used to use the 135/1.8 on his a900, so he may be able to offer an informal comparison as well.
Hi sir ! Nice to see you ;-)

I don't have the 100 any more , I sold it to get this one , but I probably can use it for the week end , let me try , if I can ill do some comparing if you like .

mpmendenhall wrote:
The "donut" bokeh that I'm seeing is mainly in the areas slightly out of focus, where blur discs are a handful of pixels wide in the "large"-sized image. Look, e.g., at some of the pointlike specular highlights in some of the duck images (on the slightly defocused rear ducks). This transitions to "perfect" bokeh in the bigger blur circles further away. I just thought this was interesting because it seems to be due to some common factor in the design of many APO lenses, regardless of make.

Now when you point it out, I see it in some of the smaller blur circles. I also see a slightly brghter ring around some of the medium-sized blurs circles. Interesting point, maybe I will check it out on my Sigma and Leica 150 and 180 mm APO lenses, but I will be away from them for a couple of weeks now.

Thanks James! Nice shots!
The bokeh style looks like 100MP and 50MP to me.
Strong contrast on OOF areas.
Very sharp with what looks like slower transition to out of focus than 100MP and of course better corrected (APO).
I hope to post some ZA 135/1.8 shots to show the differences.

There is a kind of lens weight 'dead zone' around 900 grams for which manufacturers don't feel they want to add a tripod collar (more weight, superfluous if handheld). This one is 930 grams. I suppose they also think the modern style is handholding wide open or near to it, so higher shutter speeds. Often higher ISO for the gritty film look. And it's clearly intended for full-frame bodies that are large and robust, and can handle a lens of that weight.

That would be good to see, Wayne, agree on the MP look - the new Zeiss signature, like it or loathe it, lol. The cinematic look, see all these high contrast, often blue filtered movies these days?